During the annual shareholder meeting held on Tuesday in Helsinki, investors took issue with the corporate leadership, particularly CEO Stephen Elop. The Canadian executive is the same man who authored the famous “burning platform” memo in 2011, expressing the imminent need for change within the company.

"You're a nice guy…and the leadership team is doing its best, but clearly, it's not enough," shareholder Hannu Virtanen told Elop, according to Reuters. "Are you aware that results are what matter? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Please switch to another road.”

The Wall Street Journal noted that another shareholder “asked Mr. Elop why Samsung is achieving what the investor characterized as 10 times better results than Nokia.”

Elop didn't seem to have an answer. As we've noted recently, Nokia has been severely struggling. Its bet on Windows hasn’t paid off as the company hoped and it’s been a rough few years after the company came too early to the consumer-friendly, touch-driven smartphone party. Despite those struggles, Elop expanded the company's Windows strategy by releasing high-end Lumia phones.

"We make adjustments as we go. But ... in today's war of ecosystems, we've made a very clear decision to focus on Windows Phone with our Lumia product line," Elop said according to Reuters. "And it is with that that we will compete with competitors like Samsung and (Google's operating system) Android."

The Reuters reporter also asked investors why they still held the stock despite its poor performance: ”Some older attendants at the AGM admitted to being sentimental about a firm that symbolized Finland's rebirth after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, its main trading partner.”

Even as an iOS/Apple fan, I can see that Nokia's hardware is way more elegant than what Samsung produces. Nokia and the new HTC One are only phones I would pay a premium for if I wasn't happy using an iPhone

Im sure Nokia would rather be biggest fish in a small pond with its partnership with MS, but it could be a bigger fish in a bigger pond on Android and be profitable.

Sadly, I'm not even sure that Nokia recommitting to its older OS plans would save them now. They decided to be "just another windows phone" and got what that deserves.

It's WAAAY too late for that, the horse has bolted the stable long ago. The brain trust fled as soon as Microsoft appeared; you must remember that on mobile, Nokia was, for almost a decade, the anti-Microsoft. If you think the Apple community heaped scorn on Microsoft, you have no idea about the Nokia community.

This a call to at least embrace Android in parallel to WP. And if that was a shaky proposition back in 2009, it's a lot worse now.

I like Windows Phone 8 a lot, but truth be told I'd rather have iOS on my Lumia 920. The hardware is great, but the OS is lacking in a few critical ways (my own desires, not a criticism of the platform).

Nokia's situation may be really dire, but I think in the end they made the right choice in the phone industry. By choosing to go with Windows, they were making a bet that may work out in the long run (ie. W8 tablets, WP phones, etc). Elop had the foresight to see the writing on the wall that Samsung was going to take over Android. They would just end up like HTC or LG if they went with Android, but in Nokia's case they don't have a secondary business to prop them up. In this case they just end up being a bit player in the smartphone market but will probably end up dominating that niche.

One could argue, though, that the smartphone game is over with Samsung and Apple winning with other companies fighting over the scraps (eg. Blackberry and Windows). There's a lot of merit in that argument, and it's not clear how much money you can make by being #3 or #4 when Samsung and Apple make 95% of the profits.

Nokia used to literally manufacturer rubber products back in the day before moving into phones. Maybe they should be looking into alternative revenue sources. Most mature companies (such as Microsoft) certainly do so and it's weird that Nokia isn't doing much of that.

I don't think Windows Phone is that bad of a platform (needs more apps!), and Nokia's phones are pretty good. What I think is killing Nokia, in the US, Canada and the UK at least, is the focus on network operator exclusives. For six months (since the launch of WP8) the best Nokia phone has only been available on AT&T. And what did Nokia get out of it? Some AT&T employees got them. I'm looking at importing one from Canada (Rogers unlocked) so I can run it on T-Mobile's new LTE network.

Hear me, Stephen Elop! End. Network operator. Exclusives.

Its an awful idea for struggling phone companies (HTC, Nokia), because you're limited your market to 1/3 or 1/5 of the total audience, and your product isn't that groundbreaking to drive people to switch networks (it may be good yes, but carriers are working hard to reduce churn, or network switchers, by engineering their products to keep you on AT&T or Verizon - family plans, etc.).

Most network operators ask for a 6 month exclusive, and then what? The phone is out of date and very few people will buy it.

The marketing backup you'll get in exchange for exclusivity isn't worth as much as you think it is.

Even as an iOS/Apple fan, I can see that Nokia's hardware is way more elegant than what Samsung produces. Nokia and the new HTC One are only phones I would pay a premium for if I wasn't happy using an iPhone.

To be fair, it's not very hard to create more elegant hardware than Samsung. I'm pretty sure that, if Samsung and elegant were ever in the same room together, heated words and possibly gunfire were exchanged.

Nah, but seriously, about the only people that make less elegant hardware than Samsung are the Chinese companies -- Huawei, ZTE, etc.

Nokia's situation may be really dire, but I think in the end they made the right choice in the phone industry. By choosing to go with Windows, they were making a bet that may work out in the long run (ie. W8 tablets, WP phones, etc). Elop had the foresight to see the writing on the wall that Samsung was going to take over Android. They would just end up like HTC or LG if they went with Android, but in Nokia's case they don't have a secondary business to prop them up. In this case they just end up being a bit player in the smartphone market but will probably end up dominating that niche.

They wouldn't end up like HTC if they don't make crap like they did (or even do).

LG didn't do themselves any favors with how crappy their US version of the Tegra 2 phone was either.

Motorola practically made a new phone every 4-6 months and forgot about the previous generation just as quick.

Notice a pattern here? The choice of OS isn't the issue.

I would have bought an N9 if it had any sort of future. Then Elop came along and said "I'd be concerned if I were an Android OEM. Just sayin...". Then I hear of all the lawsuits against HTC and their Android phones, and their war against Google's WebM in the past 2 months. That'll win me over.

Forget Android. Nowadays they could return to Sailfish. That OS so far looks sweet.

But I can't be too hard on Nokia. Other than Samsung and Apple, no one else makes any money on phones.

That's one way it could be done: Nokia re-integrates Sailfish and puts back the N9 UX Jolla had to rip out of it.

Cue massive derision and people asking "WHAR MY APPZ?" It would mean going back to two years ago, and it would be just repeating the usual pattern at Nokia: way ahead of everyone, does not iterate, some new shiny on the horizon, runs in circles, everybody else catches up.

Notice the investors are only looking at Apple and Samsung... Is the rest of the industry "not there" for them to examine? My brother (works at AT&T) believes Nokia should've gone with Android, but I'm not so sure. After all, there's no way the could hold onto any software advantages, and I'm not sure good hardware is enough achieve leadership/profitability in that arena.

I hate to say it, but I'm clueless whether Nokia made the right choice or not. Would Android saved them or hastened their demise? I can see it both ways.

It's unfortunate the baggage associate with the Windows Phones. I love my 920, it's struck the balance I searched for, not being interested in iPhone, and Android being too fragmented and too computer like. I feel Windows 8 and my 920 are the best phone I've had by far, but are let down by the lack of apps unfortunately. They are like the Nintendo of phones now.

Notice the investors are only looking at Apple and Samsung... Is the rest of the industry "not there" for them to examine? My brother (works at AT&T) believes Nokia should've gone with Android, but I'm not so sure. After all, there's no way the could hold onto any software advantages, and I'm not sure good hardware is enough achieve leadership/profitability in that arena.

I hate to say it, but I'm clueless whether Nokia made the right choice or not. Would Android saved them or hastened their demise? I can see it both ways.

I will be getting another Lumia in time, though. I adore my 900

Most of the android vendors do customize their user experience. Is that true for windows? (I really don't know). So, your argument about software advantages doesn't hold up.

Nokia had all the tools they needed in house - They didn't have to go with either android or windows. They just stopped innovating.

I'm quite happy with my lumia 920, it's an excellent phone, much better than my android phone before it (SGS1).

It's hard to tell what would happen with nokia, had they gone with android, i seriously doubt they would have made inroads with their own OS, but with android, their phones would have seriously been as crappy as all the others, they wouldn't be able to differentiate themselves in any way; all other bases are being covered by the plethora of android OEM's.

Couple this with MS long term vision of platform unification, which doesn't appear to be rolling out with goole, nor apple, and that may be something for the future.

I'm just happy that WP8 is a good intermediary to android and ios. With that said, WP8 does need some serious work, but updates move along, unlike android which was supposed to be the open platform; sucks that it's the buggiest and one with most virus'.

I think Nokia could have rivaled Samsung if they had switched to android a couple years back. They just needed a good phone and marketing. The Galaxy S was mediocre to good, but it was on every US carrier in some variant (market penetration). Then the Galaxy S2 and S3 just took over. Both phones got great reviews and tons of marketing. Nokia can build the hardware and I think they can market just as well as Samsung, but I don't know if they have the cash to spend as much although.

The 920 is great phone, I wouldn't buy it now (I think the HTC One looks better), but last year I wanted it or the 8X.

Windows Phone was a hail-mary that was obviously a mistake almost immediately. Continuing with it is just doubling-down on a losing hand.

They have plenty of other hail-mary options available, if they're willing to pivot and recommit to something else... Both FirefoxOS and UbuntuPhone are sure to have a rabid fan-base, so Nokia jumping head-long onto those, or other challengers would get a LOT of interest and supporters, with money to spend. They wouldn't have to completely abandon their WP efforts to test the new waters.

Where were these investors when Nokia continued to not react to the iPhone? Complaining now is easy. Like any other SEO would get Nokia back in the US mindshare in a year.

Managment kept them clueless as to how dire situations was as they were clueless themselves. As was RIM and MS. They were all blindsided to the potential of iPhone. Only Google was quick to react.

You only have to read the statements by all of the CEOs in 2007-2008 to see this is true. They suckered their shareholders to their incompetence and complacency if they allowed a complete outsider as Apple to dominate their entire industry for 75% profit share within 3 years.

The shareholders trusted them as they were the market leaders. This is what disruption does. it over turns docile management and business models

Most of the android vendors do customize their user experience. Is that true for windows? (I really don't know). So, your argument about software advantages doesn't hold up.

The UI is consistent, but nokia offer exclusive apps (for purchase), and free apps, some of which are really worthwhile. The nokia music app is great, offering free music streaming, and the "Here" maps and navigation are, somewhat better than google's.

It also appears that under the hood, all the functions of the phones are controlled in an 'app' manner, that is, it looks modular, so individual modules get updated all the time. Things like wifi, screen, touch software as well as individual apps, all have been getting updates, so nokia is supporting their devices. Something which was notoriously absent in my android experience; which oddly went in a sort of all or nothing approach where there was a major update and that's it (apart from actual apps).

Notice the investors are only looking at Apple and Samsung... Is the rest of the industry "not there" for them to examine? My brother (works at AT&T) believes Nokia should've gone with Android, but I'm not so sure. After all, there's no way the could hold onto any software advantages, and I'm not sure good hardware is enough achieve leadership/profitability in that arena.

I hate to say it, but I'm clueless whether Nokia made the right choice or not. Would Android saved them or hastened their demise? I can see it both ways.

I will be getting another Lumia in time, though. I adore my 900

Most of the android vendors do customize their user experience. Is that true for windows? (I really don't know). So, your argument about software advantages doesn't hold up.

Nokia had all the tools they needed in house - They didn't have to go with either android or windows. They just stopped innovating.

Sorry - wasn't clear. Nokia has gotten a number of time-exclusive apps for their Lumias, regularly updated their apps, etc. On Android? I could easily see enterprising folks getting together, cracking whatever keeps they stuff Nokia/Lumia only, and having itincluded in future ROMs or whatever.

Granted, one trick for the Windows Phone is its real competitor is the iPhone, not Android. If you want an easy phone, closed ecosystem, etc., for yourself or someone else? You're not going to Android. I'd buy my mom a Lumia or an iPhone, but not an Android. I'm too paranoid - she's not tech savvy, Google doesn't really keep its market as safe as I'd like, etc. But its hard to recommend WP over iOS because, well, iOS has SO much! Nevermind the app market, but just all the other crap she could get (docks, cases, accessories), plus the majority of our friends use iOS...

If someone wants Android's biggest features and freedoms, WP ought not be on their radar.

People say that Nokia is just another Windows Phone vendor. And that isn't enough. How would they possibly be profitable as just another other Android OEM? Nobody not named Samsung can make a cent on Android. HTC is in equally dire straits right now.

I really don't think Symbian ever could have been a serious contender in the market. Windows Phone is struggling, and just starting to catch momentum, and they have the dual backing of Nokia and Microsoft. Nokia by itself could not have generated any significant buzz about an in-house mobile OS.

Most network operators ask for a 6 month exclusive, and then what? The phone is out of date and very few people will buy it.

The marketing backup you'll get in exchange for exclusivity isn't worth as much as you think it is.

I can't upvote you enough. Here in Australia, I know at least 5 of my friends that were really wxcited about 920 but didn't get it because they didn't want to switch to Telstra.

I got my 920 from allphones, unbranded and australian stock.

After my carrier branded experience with android, i didn't want to touch a carrier branded phone with a barge poll; opted for the vanilla experience. I got mine at the start of the year, only because noone had stock of yellow, so i waited for that colour.

Notice the investors are only looking at Apple and Samsung... Is the rest of the industry "not there" for them to examine? My brother (works at AT&T) believes Nokia should've gone with Android, but I'm not so sure. After all, there's no way the could hold onto any software advantages, and I'm not sure good hardware is enough achieve leadership/profitability in that arena.

I hate to say it, but I'm clueless whether Nokia made the right choice or not. Would Android saved them or hastened their demise? I can see it both ways.

I will be getting another Lumia in time, though. I adore my 900

Most of the android vendors do customize their user experience. Is that true for windows? (I really don't know). So, your argument about software advantages doesn't hold up.

Nokia had all the tools they needed in house - They didn't have to go with either android or windows. They just stopped innovating.

Oddly enough, Nokia customized it by giving all of WPx their maps. Then Nokia gave WP hardware worthy of the OS.

Without Nokia WP would be down a big notch, as no other OEM wants to give it top priority.

Nokia was on Meego, a GNU/Linux based on Qt (the toolkit for Ubuntu Phone). Then, Elop, one of the ten biggest individual shareholder of Microsoft, came with his "burning platform" theory. Thus, he made Nokia jumped to the WP and angered many of his European collagues.

People say that Nokia is just another Windows Phone vendor. And that isn't enough. How would they possibly be profitable as just another other Android OEM? Nobody not named Samsung can make a cent on Android. HTC is in equally dire straits right now.

I really don't think Symbian ever could have been a serious contender in the market. Windows Phone is struggling, and just starting to catch momentum, and they have the dual backing of Nokia and Microsoft. Nokia by itself could not have generated any significant buzz about an in-house mobile OS.

Were you asleep in June 2011 when the N9 was shown? There was a massive amount of buzz until the CEO of Nokia came on camera the next day and said "I don't know why you are excited, we're going to kill it anyway".

Notice the investors are only looking at Apple and Samsung... Is the rest of the industry "not there" for them to examine? My brother (works at AT&T) believes Nokia should've gone with Android, but I'm not so sure. After all, there's no way the could hold onto any software advantages, and I'm not sure good hardware is enough achieve leadership/profitability in that arena.

I hate to say it, but I'm clueless whether Nokia made the right choice or not. Would Android saved them or hastened their demise? I can see it both ways.

I will be getting another Lumia in time, though. I adore my 900

Most of the android vendors do customize their user experience. Is that true for windows? (I really don't know). So, your argument about software advantages doesn't hold up.

Nokia had all the tools they needed in house - They didn't have to go with either android or windows. They just stopped innovating.

Sorry - wasn't clear. Nokia has gotten a number of time-exclusive apps for their Lumias, regularly updated their apps, etc. On Android? I could easily see enterprising folks getting together, cracking whatever keeps they stuff Nokia/Lumia only, and having itincluded in future ROMs or whatever.

Granted, one trick for the Windows Phone is its real competitor is the iPhone, not Android. If you want an easy phone, closed ecosystem, etc., for yourself or someone else? You're not going to Android. I'd buy my mom a Lumia or an iPhone, but not an Android. I'm too paranoid - she's not tech savvy, Google doesn't really keep its market as safe as I'd like, etc. But its hard to recommend WP over iOS because, well, iOS has SO much! Nevermind the app market, but just all the other crap she could get (docks, cases, accessories), plus the majority of our friends use iOS...

If someone wants Android's biggest features and freedoms, WP ought not be on their radar.

There was no sane reason to choose windows. Microsoft had a terrible reputation in the mobile space.Microsoft had no apps.Microsoft are closed source.Nokia would have to pay for the operating system.

On the other hand, they had their own well respected mobile operating system. All they had to do was follow the android model.

Or, they could have moved to android - Bigger, better, cheaper. They could have forked android.

So many other better options existed than windows.

As for what operating system for the general user? I would go with the one that has the biggest user base, since that way it is easy for them to get help. For tablets, I would pick an iPad, for phones, I would go with Android.

Investors needs to be patient. Sticking with the Windows Phone OS will probably pay off over the long term.

It's hard to imagine a more unrealistic statement than this. Windows phones have been a losing proposition from the day they emerged until now. Microsoft has no clue about making things that appeal to ordinary consumers.